Delhi Court November 2006 Judgments

Daya Sugar Vs. Cce

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenged the impugned order dated 30.9.2004 passed by the Commissioner(Appeals) in so far as disallowance of modvat credit on capital goods viz. welding electrodes.2. The brief facts of the case, are that the appellants are manufacturer of V.P. Sugar & molasses under chapter subheading 1701.31, 1701.39 and 1703.10 of the Central Excise Tariff Act, 1985. The appellant had been availing the modvat credit on capital goods under the erstwhile Rule 57Q of the Central Excise Rules, 1944. Show cause notices were issued on different dates proposing to disallow the modvat credit on various reasons. The adjudicating authority has allowed the modvat credit of Rs. 10,78,913,00 out of total duty of Rs. 10,83,898.00 and disallowed the credit of Rs. 4,985.00 taken during the period July, 1999 to May, 2000 under Rule 57U of the erstwhile Central Excise Rules, 1944 alongwith imposition of penalty of Rs. 1,000/- under Rule 173Q(1)(bb) ibid.3. Revenue filed appeal before the Commi...

Cce Vs. Hotline Cpt Ltd.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The instant appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner (Appeals).2. The brief facts of the case, are that the respondents are engaged in the manufacture of colour picture tubes. It has been alleged that the respondent sent defective colour tubes under the cover of Rule 57F(4)'s challan to the suppliers of picture tubes viz., M/s. BPL Display Devices Ltd., M/s. Samtel Colour Ltd. and M/s. Hotline CPT Ltd. (formerly known as LG Hotline CPT Ltd.) and had colluded with these suppliers to facilitate them to avail inadmissible Modvat credit in respect of fresh non-duty paid colour picture tubes supplied under the garb of repaired CPTs received from M/s. Hotline Wittis Display Devices Ltd. under the cover of Rule 57F(4) challan. It has further been alleged that conspiracy has been hatched between H.W.D. D. Ltd. and the supplier to send the defective picture tubes under the guise of challan issued under Rule 57F(4) of the Central Excise Rules.3. The Joint Commissi...

Megha Tex Prints Vs. Commissioner of C. Ex.

Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi

1. The appellant challenges the order of the Commissioner (Appeals) made on 28-6-2006 upholding the order-in-original by which the Deputy Commissioner disallowed Cenvat credit of Rs. 3,48,154/- and ordered its recovery from the appellant with interest while imposing penalty of Rs. 10,000/- only.2. The appellant was engaged in the manufacture of M.M. Fabrics falling under Chapter 55 of the Schedule to the Central Excise Tariff Act.According to the Revenue, they had irregularly availed Cenvat credit of the aforesaid amount in April, 2003. During the course of audit, it was observed that the as-sessee had declared excess value of goods by adding the process charges, cost of colour and chemicals without having any cenvatable documents, transport charges, discount and profit margins, etc. in the stock declared under Rule 9-A of the Cenvat Credit Rules, 2002 and had thus taken excess one time credit. The lower authorities, after considering the provisions of Rule 9A of the said Rules, came ...

Shri B.S. Rana, Senior Library Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through Its

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. A Senior Library Information Assistant seeks on promulgation of Assured Career Progression scheme, two financial upgradations in the pay scales of Rs. 6500-10500 and Rs. 10000-15200, which has been rejected on the advice of DOPT by the respondents vide impugned order dated 24.5.2005 whereby the denial has been on the basis that the applicant has not fulfilled the criteria of having educational qualification of Post Graduation as meant for direct recruits.3. Learned Counsel for applicant states that OM issued by the Ministry of Finance on 26.10.1990 shows that for the post of Library Information Officer qualification attached to the direct recruitment is Post Graduation but for promotion only experience is prescribed.Accordingly, placing reliance on the conditions of grant of ACP contained in para 6 of SCP scheme, it is contended that what is required is fulfillment of normal promotional norms for grant of upgradation as the qualification of Post Graduation is not required for promo...

Dr. Subhash C. Sehgal S/O Late Shri Vs. Union of India (Uoi) Through ( ...

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

1. By virtue of this application, applicant has impugned respondents' action of not transferring him to Delhi before his superannuation on 31.7.2006 for his entitlement while working in the Headquarters.Accordingly, any other relief, which is found necessary in the facts of the case, has also been prayed for by the applicant.2. Brief factual matrix of the case transpires that being appointed as Director in ICMR in 1993, applicant was posted at Port Blair. Wife of the applicant is a cancer patient incurring heavy medical expenditure.Applicant on this count made several representations for transfer, which ultimately led to filing of OA-749/2005. The Tribunal stayed the operation of the impugned order, which has been overturned in WP-10443/2005 by the High Court of Delhi on 13.3.2006.3. On 14.7.2006 while Shri P.P. Khurana, learned senior counsel was appearing for respondents, a question was asked as to feasibility of posting the applicant to New Delhi so that he cannot be deprived of CG...

Hc (Min.) Ramesh Chander - I (Pis Vs. Govt. of Nct of Delhi Through

Court: Central Administrative Tribunal CAT Delhi

2. A minor penalty of censure issued in pursuance of a show cause notice dated 10.11.2004 passed by the respondents on 21.12.2004 has been assailed. Also assailed an order passed in appeal on 20.5.2005 whereby a minor penalty of censure upon the Head Constable (Ministerial) has been affirmed.3. Learned Counsel for applicant states that by mathematical calculation the concerned authority to whom the bills were presented would have signed 360 times but the same has been exaggerated in the show cause notice. It is also contended that the defence plea taken by the applicant in his appeal having not been taken into consideration, which, inter alia, included the very important aspect of the matter, i.e., as per the orders of DCP (Security) bills were not to be processed further till receipt of the budget from the PHQ and on being received the necessary payments could be made, which would have resulted in alleged delay in presenting the bills.4. It is also stated by the applicant that there ...

Ranjan Dwivedi, Vs. State Through Cbi

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ278

J.M. Malik, J.1. This order shall decide the three above said applications moved by appellant Sudevanand. Application Crl. M. No. 5786/1997 was moved by appellant Sudevanand, an Avdhoot in the Anand Marg Sect on 22.10.1997. The appellant was involved in bomb blast case, which killed L.N. Mishra at Samastipur on 02.01.1975 as well as in the present case, where the appellant was indicted along with others, for attempt to kill the then Chief Justice of India on 20.03.1975. During emergency, Anand Marg was banned. It is alleged that due to above said cases, the emergency was imposed by the ruling party.2. Vikram, PW1, is a common approver in both the above said cases. The appellant was convicted on the basis of his statement. Vikram retracted his statement on 30.09.1978, which was recorded by the Jail Superintendent Danapur Jail, Patna by the order of Bihar Chief Minister. In his retracted confession, he gave a detailed statement as to how he was tortured by CBI to make false statements in...

State (Delhi Administration) Vs. Mahinder Singh

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2009(93)DRJ307

S.N. Aggarwal, J.1. The State (Delhi Administration now Government of NCT Delhi) has preferred this appeal aggrieved by the acquittal of the respondent of charges under Sections 448 and 427 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as the `Code' only) vide impugned judgment dated 7.10.1982 passed by the Court below.2. The brief facts of the case giving rise to this appeal are as follows:Smt. Sushila Devi claims herself to be the owner of House No. 113-B, West Patel Nagar, New Delhi. She purchased the said house from Shri Dewan Singh on the basis of Agreement to Sell and other related documents in May, 1973. After purchase of the said house, she inducted S.R. Gupta as a tenant in her house. There was dispute between Smt. Sushila Devi and her tenant S.R. Gupta. Proceedings for eviction of S.R. Gupta were filed by Smt. Sushila Devi and the status as to what happened to those eviction proceedings is not on record. The respondent who was charged under Sections 448 and 427 of the Cod...

V.K. Bagga Vs. O.P. Arora

Court: Delhi

Reported in: 2007CriLJ1101

A.K. Sikri, J.1. The petition seeks quashing of the criminal complaint under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code in which petitioner has been summoned to stand trial for an offence under Sections 499 and 500 of the Indian Penal Code.2. The complainant (respondent herein) was employee of M/s Killick Nixon Limited, employed at clerical level at its New Delhi Branch office. Petitioner is working in this very company as Branch Manager. The respondent had allegedly committed certain acts of gross disobedience and, thereforee, a charge-sheet dated 29th September, 1994 was issued to him. He was also suspended from work on 6th January, 1995. Thereafter, an inquiry was held into the charges leveled in the said charge-sheet. The Inquiry Officer, after conclusion of inquiry, submitted his inquiry report on 1st February, 2002, as per which charges against the respondent stood proved. 3. Principles of natural justice mandate serving of a copy of the inquiry report to the delinquent employ...

S.N.P. Punj Vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Special Range 15

Court: Delhi

Reported in: (2007)207CTR(Del)325; 137(2007)DLT608; [2008]301ITR76(Delhi)

A.K. Sikri, J.1. These three petitions arise out of the same complaint filed by the Income-Tax Department for the assessment year 1988-89 and, thereforee, are heard and decided together. For the sake of convenience, facts of Crl. M.C. No. 153/2005 are taken.2. The respondent herein, namely Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, has filed a complaint under Section 276CC and 276D read with Section 278B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') against M/s. Dayagen and Others. The petitioner herein is arraigned as accused No. 4 in the said complaint. Matter relates to the assessment year 1988-89 and the allegation in the complaint is that the accused persons failed to file the return for the assessment year 1988-89 as required under Section 139(1) of the Act. M/s.Dayagen was a partnership firm, which is made accused No. 1. Accused Nos. 2 to 7 were the partners of M/s. Dayagen. At the time of filing of the complaint, M/s. Dayagen was no longer a partnership firm but becam...